> On 16 Dec 2018, at 23:14, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:04 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:01 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 3:28 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > But a system that is consistent can also prove a statement that is false: > > axiom 1: Trump is a genius. > axiom 2: Trump is stable. > > theorem: Trump is a stable genius. > > So how is this different from flawed physical theories? > > Physical theories do not claim to prove theorems - they are not systems of > axioms and theorems. Attempts to recast physics in this form have always > failed. > > > Physical theories claim to describe models of reality. > > Physical theories are models of reality -- using the word "model" in the > physicists sense. > > You can have a fully consistent physical theory that nevertheless fails to > accurately describe the physical world, > > Like Brent's example of an axiomatic description of Trump...... > > or is an incomplete description of the physical world. Likewise, you can > have an axiomatic system that is consistent, but fails to accurately describe > the integers, or is less complete than we would like. > > Axiomatic system are always going to fail to capture everything we would like > to capture about any domain. That is why attempted axiomatisation of physics > have been rather unsuccessful. > > It is a completely analogous situation. If you hold the physical reality is > real because we can study it objectively and refine our understanding of it > through observations, > > That is not "why" I hold the physical world to be real. I take the physical > world to be real because that is the definition of reality.
Given by Aristotle in his theology/metaphysics. But that was exactly what Plato was skeptical about. To identify real with physical requires a special act of faith, and can be shown inconsistent with Mechanism. So this cannot be used to study and test Mechanism. It assumes implicitly that Mechanism is false. > > then the same would hold for the mathematical reality. > > No, mathematical "reality" (note the scare quotes) is a derived realm, Assuming some other reality. > entirely dependent on the set of axioms chosen in any instance. If you believe in some reality, like the arithmetical reality, you choose the axioms which do not contradict it, but that is the same in physics. > So it is not in any way analogous to physics. Only because you make the assumption that a physical universe exists in some irreducible sense. But that is an enormous ontological commitment. It is not used in physics, only in materialist metaphysics, and for which there is not only no evidences, but there are many evidences against. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
